I will be able to elucidate my thoughts/objections to it better when I’m done with my Mock Drafts or stop crying that I seem to end up with LenDale White.

I disagree with this analysis. The cultural component was that Clinton was a working class person, but that was not really relevant in his economic policymaking (see below). I think it was rather that Clinton after 94 was essentially legislating half loaves (or imo 3/4 loaves) of the rightwing agenda the same way that Nixon put some things into place that were half loaves (or imo, 2/5 loaves) of the progressive agenda of the 1960s/1970s.

Clinton frustrated rightwingers because he had formal power while not belonging to their party, and so they grew incensed, and he repeatedly frustrated their efforts to get him. But what he did has been done continuously in American politics post wwii (Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, etc. – maybe even Carter). What I object to are the policies and the extent to which they forwarded the agenda the same agenda that Reagan and Bush II had. It would take more analysis to really understand the extent to which he did so and the extent to which he headed it off (the most convincing argument I’ve heard is that by passing NAFTA, he created the culture wars because both parties became pro-corporate and that was the only way to mobilize the bulk of the electorate that was not rich or otherwise heavily invested in finance capital).

The corruption, as is clearly evident, pervades all political parties pretty much everywhere (whether defined as “legal” or “illegal” (e.g. what are earmarks?)).

And I could be reading it wrong, but I did not think that the statement you made in #51 is congruent with the explanation in #77. Moreover, can we take the hypothesis you make in #77 and apply it to the differences in the Socio-Cultural acceptance/amalgamation in/into the American psyche & society, of Indians who came in the previous generations to the ones who are immigrating now?

Thanks for your kind words and apologies for the lack of clarity – I would probably have chosen some of my words differently, but then, this is what conversations are for. I’ll try to make what I was saying clear so the common thread will be more apparent. What i said was The best social justice argument I can come up with for opposing race-based affirmative action. By “social justice” I mean the best means for advancing the interests of the disempowered – which many people have framed in numerous ways, from advocating for separatism and revolution to integration and upward mobility. This is separate from looking at the two questions of how the indivdiual members (as opposed to the disempowered group in question) benefits and whether or not you can improve “conditions” without addressing fundamental power inequalities. You can see this in the debates over the “immigration reform” bill that was debated a few years ago where even among progressives there was disagreement about whether creating a guestworker status would be a good tool for assisting undocumented people by creating a legal platform on which they could base further claims for rights as well as removing to an extent the fear of further horrible anti-immigrant legislation at various levels and those who opposed it like me because I felt it was not half a loaf, but a tenth of a loaf and waiting would be better. Both sides have some valid claims and furthermore, both sides were largely unrepresentative of the opinions of undocumented people, friends, family, communities who took to the streets, imo.

In any case, my point being that advancing the interests of the disempowered by allowing them to claim power (in the form of assets, social and political capacity, etc.) is the basis on which I measure social and economic policy. So it’s on those grounds that I said that this was the best argument against affirmative action I could come up with from a social justice standpoint. People can advance all kinds of other arguments like individual vs. group equality, etc., which are, i think, more relevant in other contexts but not in this one as well as ones that i would consider totally oblivious (e.g. that affirmative action somehow “creates” racism or is among the worst problems of racism). I am totally open to reconsidering any and all policies from this vantage point. I simply don’t see an “end” to racism in American society as a whole (just look at the polls of Obama vs. McCain in the context of the last 8 years, their respective charismas and gaffes, etc.), but I think that the way that race, class, gender, etc. have changed might necessitate reconfiguring how people in power address those issues in society and how we respond to them (as that seems to be the only privilege we’re given as americans).

But I brook no bull$hit, and the first step in any conversation for me is to come to an agreement with the other person that we both share a substantive interest in addressing disempowerment rather than solely conditions or ideological ends. Which is why until I hear otherwise, I start with the premise behind affirmative action – that individuals from disempowered groups need assistance to advance given the weight of social hierarchies against them – and would be interested in hearing modifications on those, not in arguments that simply attempt to undercut the entire moral basis of the policy.

On one final point – I don’t think looking at people’s social position by when they immigrated to the United States is fair without bringing in all kinds of other factors like language proficiency, family wealth or poverty (including educational degrees and whatnot), race, gender, sexuality, citizenship status, etc. An “Indian” who immigarted in the wave after the professional wave might be a taxi driver or he/she might also be a doctor like the post 65 immigrants – have to look at that.

Its not that I failed to understand what you were saying; I honestly appreciate a lot of the information and the perspectives you provide. But in this case, the way you phrased it as “the best I can come up with” could only have been appropriate if you were being witheringly sarcastic…as that is not the best argument against AA, not even statistically and I doubt the social variables you mention can be measured.

And I could be reading it wrong, but I did not think that the statement you made in #51 is congruent with the explanation in #77. Moreover, can we take the hypothesis you make in #77 and apply it to the differences in the Socio-Cultural acceptance/amalgamation in/into the American psyche & society, of Indians who came in the previous generations to the ones who are immigrating now?

And yet more – I agree with you that the Clinton Administration was profoundly Nixonian (both in the role it played in American politics as well as in its approach) and very conservative. I think our difference lies in that you actually like this

I like their policies, not their politics. It long been ironic that they where hated so much by the right, despite being genuine conservative democrats and early suppoters of the DLC, a bastion for great liberal anti-communists. My guess is that it was a cultural thing, they where culturally liberal and the VRWC couldn’t see that. Add to the mix the corruption, treatment of women (and now blacks) and you have a powder keg not unlike NIxon who was relatively liberal but definitely culturally conservative.

I don’t wait, I simply call you out. Pay some attention to what Clinton spoke yesterday. If you think that it is OK for Rethugs to call Hillary and her daughter vile names and then shed fake tears over her stepping aside for Obama, you must be a v. dense Reaganite. Get used to it the “Reagan Revolution” never was and is in tatters today. Any doubts? Ask stooge Sakashvili anohter one of those 2-bit dictators!

i have no idea what you’re talking about. i have no problem with obama’s experience and never made an issue of it other than to point out hillary did, especially with he commander and chief/threshold argument. nor did i call her or her daughter vile names ( i believe the most prominent person to do sa was some msnbc liberal who called her a prostitute or something). foxnews has been for than fair to her (her camp concedes) though msnbc’s chris mathews was more than a little sexist, according to the feminist establishment.

and I certainly didn’t shed any tears, fake or otherwise, on her demise. on the contrary, I spent countless hours chronicling her southern strategy in painful detail here on SM, so i was thrilled with her demise, though that doesn’t mean she didn’t give a great speech…clearly on a higher level than all the previous speakers.

as far as the end of the Reagan rev, take it up with bubba who declared the end of big government, or obama who called him more transformational than bubba. i don’t know what the rise of petty dictators has to do with anything. thats a step up from the orwellian madness that was the ussr and mao’s china.

I don’t know why you’re asking me when I made no such accusation. Take it up with Hillary “I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002” Clinton.

I don’t wait, I simply call you out. Pay some attention to what Clinton spoke yesterday. If you think that it is OK for Rethugs to call Hillary and her daughter vile names and then shed fake tears over her stepping aside for Obama, you must be a v. dense Reaganite. Get used to it the “Reagan Revolution” never was and is in tatters today. Any doubts? Ask stooge Sakashvili anohter one of those 2-bit dictators!

“The best social justice argument I can come up with for opposing race-based affirmative action is that it coopts too many potentially great leaders of colour into the upper tiers of the elite and turns them into Barack Obama rather than Malcolm X.” That is a funny statement…To steal from Aunt Mae “With great knowledge come inexplicable boundaries on reason…”

What are you failing to understand? If you have a system that takes the top tier out of particular disempowered communities and puts them in the general elite, allows individual social mobility out of a group over group based mobility, then one of the consequences is that you’re pulling organic intellectuals out of places where they would do different kinds of work than running for president – perhaps more valuable kinds of work–though that’s a much longer conversation. But this is, in fact, what Obama’s and Clinton’s candidacies signify – growing elite acceptance of multiculturalism at an elite level, but very little evidence of that extending (yet) to their treatment of working class communities.

Think of it as a new variant on “how the irish became white.”

That is a funny statement…To steal from Aunt Mae “With great knowledge come inexplicable boundaries on reason…”

67 · the doctor on August 27, 2008 02:44 AM · Direct link · “Quote�(?) oh, i forgot you are a repub. that means that iraqi deaths (or lives) don’t matter. my bad.

Yes, because I’m a Republican…Not for any other reason…but because I’m a Republican – Iraqi lives matter less to me than Vietnamese lives…

Can we flame any better? plzthxbai